I was a little scared a while back when I read Brian’s post wondering whether DivShare was on its way out. There has been a big update on their blog recently, and the latest news suggests that they are back in full-swing:
The blog is back, and we’ve got some great announcements about the future of DivShare. Over the past two months, we’ve been building up our network of servers, working with new partners and investors, even turning down some big buyout offers. Today, we’ll start to unveil the new features and changes that will make DivShare the most powerful and professional media and document-sharing tool on the web in 2008.
I must agree with Brian, the original promise of divShare was a bit much: “No storage limits. No file limits. Your files stay online forever.” So their revised plan to allot users 5 GBs of space free and 50 GBs of downloads each month seems a bit more practical (it’s almost as good as having a GMail account these days).
While a bit gun shy given the speculation surrounding divShare, the service represents a crucial niche for storing and managing files, videos, images, music, etc. that can easily integrate with numerous online services. In fact, when DTLT was discussing the best way for students to upload, manage, and embed audio, we found ourselves scratching our collective head given Odeo has all but gone defunct. DivShare is still the best bet for uploading, managing, and embedding audio we came up with — are we missing something?
All that said, forever is certainly a long time and and while such scares keep us vigilant, I wouldn’t mind seeing DivShare stabilize a bit, particularly because they have such a nice WP Plugin that integrates so beautifully with WPMu 1.3.
My UBUWEBrss subscription is the feed that keeps on giving. I scan it regularly, and indulge in watching a work by a filmmaker I haven’t heard of before irregularly. This time Harun Farocki’s video/documentary I Thought I was Seeing Convicts (2001) caught my attention. The film is about a maximum-security prison in Corcoran, California. And in many ways traces the relationship between technology, surveillance, and control in the most oppressive of settings. Interestingly enough, the film starts with a kind of filmed screencast of how technology is used to control shoppers, and it quickly transitions to how similar technology is used in prisons to control convicts.
Moreover, the film uses the images from the prison’s surveillance cameras to tell its story (talk about fly-on-the-wall film making), and frames a number of the gladiator like fights in the concrete yard that, according to this film, are often framed by the guards and even bet upon. The fights ultimately end with shooting, and on a number of occasions the shooting have proved fatal.
Here are some foucauldian quotes that are laid over the images that in many ways stand in for any formal kind of narration (or narrative for that matter): “Today violence and power are (mostly) exercised impersonally” -a sentiment that is beautifully illustrated by the figures in the surveillance cameras that seem more like characters in a game than humans in a cage. The other quote that is a bit horrifying as you watch this short documentary is the notion that “the field of vision and the fire coincide.” As the write-up on the video page notes, “This video emphasizes the social relationship between the one who fires and the one who films, between the one with force and the one who takes shots.”
After watching this documentary, I saw another title by Farocki that caught my eye after a recent trip to Ikea, Die Schöpfer der Einkaufswelten (The Creators of Shopping Worlds) (2001) (interestingly enough made the same year as I thought I was Seeing Convicts). This documentary traces the immense thought, money, planning, and research invested in the design of shopping malls. It tracks the theories of entrance ways, profitability, leasing, the consumer’s gaze and a host of other fascinating issues that illustrate the ways in which the built environment of capitalism is in many ways a planned object of controlling the consumer — not always successful by any means, but premised on a notion of patterns, behavior, and a strange notion of faith.
These two relatively short documentaries come as a highly recommended double-feature that interestingly frame the design of control, something that certainly translates into all kinds of realms, but most certainly the online world.
I just posted an image from the ever-magical Shorpy’s Photo Blog, and when I returned to my RSS reader to continue browsing the images I stumbled on another moving photo titled “A Big Kiss for Grandpa” featuring a cool-looking, supine man holding his grand-daughter up in the air.
What you may or may not notice on first glance is the cigarette leaning comfortably against grandfather’s lip. Not particularly strange for 1941 by any account, but the comments that ensue on this post suggest just how caught up we are in out own righteous and historically blinding sense of “progress.” Take, for example, the first comment left by Mr. Mel:
It shows what we didn’t know or think of then. The possibility of burning the child or even worse, the ingestion of secondhand smoke leading to the lung problems of that and succeeding generations. We’ve got the info now, but there’s still plenty of smokers out there.
As you can imagine, a series of comment responses follow about smoking, some defending Grandpa and others attacking him. What drives me crazy is that all these people can remark upon is the cigarette (a rather inconspicuous element of this photo), when the image itself speaks volumes about a intimate moment between two people, two generations. I don’t know why this irks me so, but to see an image that inspires so much that is beautiful be reduced to a sophomoric argument about the dangers of smoking drives me nuts. Our culture is spiraling out of control in all the wrong directions — and if it ain’t the organic hoax or the anti-smoking freaks or fitness frenzy or the touchy-feely child-rearing hippies, it’s the death of Hollywood, iHop, and all that is holy.
I discovered two cool things today that have to do with WPMu and tags.
First, that WPMu 1.3 (and WP 2.3 for that matter) comes with a stock widget for a tag cloud that doesn’t require a plugin or anything. How did I discover this? Well, UMW History professor Sue Fernsebner had it in the sidebar of the class blog for her Cultural History of Late 20th c. China seminar (which also has possibly the coolest header image I have yet to see on a blog). So, if you are running WPMu 1.3, look for the Tag Cloud widget, and drag it to your sidebar and behold the wonder of tagging without using categories.
Second, I found a solid plugin on wpmudev.org called MuTags. This is a simple solution for tags on WPMu, and what I particuarly like about it is that it gives you the option to create a tag cloud of all the existing tags as well as the existing categories — which is very cool if you have been using categories as tags as UMW Blogs has for the last semester.
I really think that tags add that extra functionality for aggregation across classes for student blogs that make the whole portfolio/aggregation idea that much simpler. A larger post in and of itself, but I’ll end this one by saying that the possibilities for tags in WPMu 1.3 has some amazing potential.
This poll started out as a way to test Lester ‘GaMerZ’ Chan’s WordPress Poll plugin (which is pretty slick by the way), and quickly turned into a full-fledged poll asking what you think are the five best film adaptations of a Stephen King novel or story. I am limiting this poll to films only for the sake of simplicity and space. I know this may omit some great short films, TV Movies, Mini-Series, film episodes, music videos, etc., but King is far too prolific and the list of media adaptations of his stories and novels is itself horrifically long.
Keep in mind that I may have missed a few, so please use the comments to either slap my wrist or make a snide remark.
I think you’ll be amazed at two things as a result of this poll:
1) How many solid directors (some even great) made very good films out of a King work.
2) How hard it is to choose a top 5.
Just check the box next to your top five and click on the vote button and your done and you can then see the results.
What are your five favorite film adaptations of a Stephen King novel or story?
The Shining (1980) by Stanley Kubrick (15%, 34 Votes)
Shawshank Redemption (1994) by Frank Darabont (15%, 32 Votes)
Stand by Me (1986) by Rob Reiner (12%, 27 Votes)
Misery (1990) by Rob Reiner (11%, 25 Votes)
The Green Mile (1999) by Frank Darabont (9%, 19 Votes)
Carrie (1976) by Brian DePalma (8%, 17 Votes)
The Dead Zone (1983) by David Cronenberg (5%, 12 Votes)
Creepshow (1982) by George Romero (3%, 7 Votes)
Pet Cemetary (1989) by Mary Lambert (3%, 7 Votes)
The Mist (2007) by Frank Darabont (3%, 6 Votes)
Firestarter (1984) by Mark L. Lester (2%, 4 Votes)
The Running Man (1987) by Paul Michael Glaser (2%, 4 Votes)
Cujo (1983) by Lewis Teague (1%, 3 Votes)
Christine (1983) by John Carpenter (1%, 3 Votes)
Children of the Corn (1984) Fritz Kiersch (1%, 3 Votes)
Cat's Eye (1985) by Lewis Teague (1%, 2 Votes)
Dreamcatcher (2003) by Lawrence Kasdan (1%, 2 Votes)
Maximum Overdrive (1986) by Stephen King (1%, 2 Votes)
The Lawnmower Man (1992) by Brett Leonard (I imagine Stephen King would suggest this should not be on the list) (1%, 2 Votes)
Dolores Claibourne (1995) by Taylor Hackford (1%, 2 Votes)
The Dark Half (1993) by George Romero (1%, 2 Votes)
Apt Pupil (1998) by Bryan Singer (0%, 1 Votes)
Thinner (1996) by Tom Holland (0%, 1 Votes)
Needful Things (1993) by Fraser Clarke Heston (0%, 1 Votes)
Silver Bullet (1985) by Daniel Attias (0%, 1 Votes)
Sleepwalkers (1992) by Mick Garris (0%, 1 Votes)
The Mangler (1995) by Tobe Hooper (0%, 0 Votes)
Sometime's They Come Back (1991) by Tom McLoughlin (0%, 0 Votes)
Creepshow 2 (1987) by Michael Gornick (0%, 0 Votes)
Graveyard Shift (1990) by Ralph S. Singleton (0%, 0 Votes)
Reflecting on movies I have seen is one of my favorite things in the world to do, probably only second to actually watching them. A recent post about David Cronenberg’s film The Brood (1979) got me thinking about some of his earlier films. Which, in turn, led me back to a particular sequence in Scanners (1981) that seems remarkable to me in that it is probably the earliest imagining of the future possibilities of the internet on film I can recall And while I am sure there are early examples in film that I am unaware of, it is remarkable that Scanners comes two years before the most popular instantiation of remote computer networking and intranet hacking is widely popularized in film with WarGames (1983).
Scanners is one of the many Cronenberg’s films that explores his predominant fascination with embodied otherness as a physical, mental, and often medical phenomenon. In this case the motif is imagined through a group of humans that can communicate with one another without words by means of telepathy, access “normal” people’s thoughts, and even control and/or harm others with their paranormal telekinetic powers. The story evolves around an evil plot for world domination spearheaded by the rogue scanner Darryl Revok (played by one of the great bad guys of 1980s film Michael Ironside) wherein these mental mutants would seize powers from the “normals” — not unlike the premise for the first (and best) X-Men film (2000).
The film’s protagonist, Cameron Vale (Stephen Lack), is a compassionate scanner who uncovers the plot and attempts to foil the underground scanner insurgency. The scene below frames a moment in the film when Vale is accessing a sensitive information from ConSec’s corporate database with his mind by way of a pay phone. This was my first encounter with the conception of dialing into a network, and it would be more than ten years before I actually experienced it for myself. Cronenberg planted the imaginative seed in Scanners long before it would even begin to make sense to me.
What is interesting about this clip is how it reflects a moment of computing, this was well before the internet, and computing was imagined as a purely scientific vocation with the technicians dressed in lab coats (I want one of those!) surrounded by a room full of sophisticated, sterile, and hulking machinery. What’s more, is I really enjoy the way Cronenberg films the close-ups of the circuit boards, using the camera to imagine the other-worldliness of the inner spaces of this network (as an aside, for some strange reason it reminds me of the opening title sequence of Philip Kaufman’s the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers when you see the disembodied alien pods making their way towards earth). This scene in Scanners imagines the idea of a network as a remote negotiation between human minds and data through the material realities telephone lines, circuitry, and terminals. This scene imagines a corporal fusion of mind and machine and the ensuing struggle between people that is mediated by a new and developing infrastructure of access, information, and security.
As the character Braedon Keller (Lawrence Dane) notes in the following clip: “Vales’s nervous system and the computer’s nervous system are joined together; he’s scanning it. I want to cripple them both, or maybe kill them both — but how?”
It’s interesting to re-watch Cronenberg’s film and think about the powers of remote connection in relationship to ideas such as telepathy in our current moment, which in many ways is taken for granted given its relative ubiquity —Twitter is just one example of a pretty amazing form of filtered, constant presence and knowing. At the same time, this film focuses on the amazing and disturbing implications of distributed networks as somehow telekinetic in their ability to control or hurt others remotely —but more on this in my next post.
I moved all my personal blogs, wikis, and various sites off of Bluehost about a month ago save the following: the jimgroom.net domain which acts like a resume-like site; the learningparty.net domain which hosts a group of experimental sites; and the umwlibraries.org domain which I have been working with in very modest ways as of late.
So, to say the least, my Bluehost account has seen less activity than ever over the last month. That’s why I was so surprised this morning to discover that everyone of the remaining sites I have hosted on Bluehost (including one Typo3, two MediaWiki, and five or six WordPress installs, most of which are inactive) has been down for the last two or three days.
Constant CPU Quota Error messages was the reason why I moved the bava and various other domains I manage to a more reliable server, but I figured once I took the bava off Bluehost (which is running a million resource intensive plugins), everything else would work like a charm. Not the case.
What was worse this time is that Bluehost didn’t even give me temporary CPU Quota messages for the various sites, rather every site in my account was balked. The technician I talked to at Bluehost said that too many resource intensive PHP scripts were running which in turn froze my account (I can’t imagine what scripts those were, but I’ll take a closer look at my error log shortly), leaving all the sites with various error messages like the following:
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
or even the good old
“500 Internal Server Error.”
The fact that the staff at Bluehost is all too quick to blame those nefarious PHP scripts that are “resource intensive” without really examining the issue at hand makes me less and less inclined to do anything with this hosting service. The real issue is that they offer more service than they can provide, so once you start really trying to use the resources you are promised you get nothing but headaches. Guess it’s time to move the rest of my sites over to a hosting provider I pay more for out of my own pocket. With hosting, as with most things, you do get what you pay for, and with many of our experiments at UMW becoming more and more part of the general landscape of the teaching and learning I wonder if we aren’t getting closer to needing a solution that isn’t so Wal-Marty: cheap but ultimately crap.
When I was at UCLA in the mid-90s I saw a double-feature at Melnitz Theater (the Film School’s theater) that really freaked me out. The theme of the double-feature was “Maternal Nightmares,” and the films were Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby (1968) and David Cronenberg’s The Brood (1979). I am thinking about this outing because I recently saw my first film in the theaters in a long while, David Cronenberg’s recent feature Eastern Promises (2007) (in Italian no less—so granted I may have missed a few things), and I was totally let down. Like The History of Violence (2005), I find Cronenberg’s recent films to lack all of the true terror and deeply disturbing horror of his earlier work like Shivers (1975), Rabid (1977), Scanners (1981), VideoDrome (1983) and The Brood, by far his most terrifying. How can you frame anything more terrorizing than homicidal ghoul children? Don’t believe me? Check out the following scenes from the film, but just remember that you were warned!
Now that is great horror! Cronenberg’s more “serious reflections” on violence in his last two films have some solid filmic elements, but move far away from what made his films truly visceral and haunting. They are almost comic-book like, doing Tarantino with none of the flare. I agree with my friend Andrea that the state of film is in terrible decline, but this fact “hasn’t created in me any sense of obligation” (to quote Stephen Crane out of turn).
is an ongoing conversation about media of all kinds ...
Testimonials:
Generations from now, they won't call it the Internet anymore. They'll just say, "I logged on to the Jim Groom this morning.
-Joe McMahon
Everything Jim Groom touches is gold. He's like King Midas, but with the Internet.
-Serena Epstein
My understanding is that an essential requirement of the internet is to do whatever Jim Groom asks of you while you're online.
-James D. Calder
@jimgroom is the Billy Martin of edtech.
-Luke Waltzer
My 3yr old son is VERY intrigued by @jimgroom's avatar. "Is he a superhero?" "Well, yes, son, to many he is."
-Clint Lalonde
Jim Groom is a fiery man.
-Antonella Dalla Torre
“Reverend” Jim “The Bava” Groom, alias “Snake Pliskin” is a charlatan and a fraud, a self-confessed “used car salesman” clawing his way into the glamour of the education technology keynote circuit via the efforts of his oppressed minions at the University of Mary Washington’s DTLT and beyond. The monster behind educational time-sink ds106 and still recovering from his bid for hipster stardom with “Edupunk”, Jim spends his days using his dwindling credibility to sell cheap webhosting to gullible undergraduates and getting banned from YouTube for gross piracy.